Petersburg. It was in 2003 that the CBU was given official blessing when it was identified in the Ministry of Education’s 2003-2007 action programme, Finland, Russia and International Co-operation (Opetusministeri 2003). In 2004 this initiative was concretised when the CBU was founded, administered from the University of Joensuu and involving partner universities from both sides of the border (see Figure 1).
In 2004 stage 1 of the CBU project – a feasibility study – was completed. Currently, new funding has been organised until 2007. The conceptualisation of the CBU is still evolving, with many variations ranging from virtual, semi-virtual or taught formats under consideration; in general terms, it is an umbrella structure that will co-exist with and complement existing programmes in its member institutions. The goal has been to identify and develop areas of common interest and expertise upon which to build high-quality Joint Master’s and doctoral training programmes in English – important objectives identified within the Bologna Reform process (see, eg., European Union 2005).
Location of CBU member institutions.
Students will enrol in CBU programmes at their home institutions on both sides of the border and will complete courses contributed equally by the various institutions involved, thus comprising the joint programme. At the moment, six subjects are being developed at the Master’s level within the CBU framework, including business and administration, forestry, history, information technology, international relations, and public health. These subjects gradually are being introduced (‘piloted’) starting from the autumn 2005, with fullyfunctioning programmes envisioned for 2006/07.
The CBU has been conceptualised as a tool to realise many goals, the most basic of these being not only to increase the overall level of cooperation between Finland and Russia in higher education, but to intensify it. The CBU is closely linked to the European-wide Bologna reform process and in Finland this has been formalised by the recent 2005 change in the Law on Higher Education, which conforms to Bologna criteria and emphasises such aspects as mobility, ECTS compatibility and standardised diploma supplements. With the CBU the aim is to promote the objectives of the Bologna process in Russia, providing a hands-on model of such principles as ECTS and the 3+(Bachelor’s + Master’s) degree programmes. Arguably, the CBU is a rejection of the models of cross-border co-operation with Russia of the past 15 years that symbolised and maintained inequalities between Western and Russian higher educational institutions. The principle of joint programme development is only possible because the CBU recognises that there is already a high level of quality education on both sides of the border that can support such a venture. At the Koli Border Forum’s Re-Bordering of Europe seminar in Finland in 2004, a presentation by Dr. James Scott of the Freie Universitt Berlin emphasised the need to embrace positive interdependence and to reject asymmetry, whereby partnership is difficult when a more powerful partner dictates to a weaker one. Indeed, another of the forum’s participants who has since returned to Petrozavodsk to develop CBU teaching, Dr. Sergei Prozorov, echoed these thoughts when he stated that Russia too often has been treated as an ‘object’ by the West (cf.
2004, 17). For too long individuals and institutions in Russian have been relegated to the position of junior partner – ‘minds without money’ – and not given due credit. The CBU challenges universities on both sides of the border to recognise that we have much to learn from each other; its joint programme development underlining mutual information exchange by involving as partners only those institutions and subjects that can bring a high level of quality to the project.
There are many challenges and hurdles already encountered that must be overcome for the successful realisation of the CBU project.
Funding is certainly one aspect that will determine the success of the project, and while European and Nordic institutions certainly have been asked to contribute, the challenge is for the individual partners to also find resources from within. One potential obstacle to the CBU is commitment – the commitment of university administrations, the commitment of individual faculties, departments and academic lecturers to such a revolutionary idea. For the CBU concept does mean that control over instruction and programme content will be shared between institutions – institutions in a second country – so trust between and mutual respect of the Finnish and Russian partners must be built up. Perhaps the largest hurdle is that of quality assurance.
Obviously, the very viability of the CBU depends upon being able to create programmes that will be recognised as high quality in the panEuropean, and even global arenas. We know that even within the Nordic countries and EU – hence the initiatives that have led to Bologna – standards can fluctuate, that the national requirements for degree fulfilment can vary, that much can depend on individual lecturers, students, departments, and universities – all affecting the quality of education. And thus Russia’s implementation of the Bologna Reform, something that the current government has committed itself to, is vital in the successful realisation of the CBU idea.
These are just some of the difficulties that have been met and identified by the CBU administration – more will certainly arise. Within the current organisation, a CBU Council of Rectors, Working Group, and specialised academic councils comprised of individuals from university administrations, departments, and outside experts have been entrusted to address any problems that arise, and at the institutional level we must trust that the individual scholars and departments involved in the development of the pilot subjects will be there to advise us on how best to overcome these challenges in their fields. In summary, the CBU has the potential to take Finnish and Russian institutions forward in a new direction and in a new partnership – only time will tell if this challenge will be met, but the fact that efforts are being made is important in the overall development in cross-border co-operation in higher education.
2. European Union (2005). The Bologna Process. Information on various aspects of the EU’s Bologna policy can be found at:
3. Opetusministeri (2003). Finliandiia, Rossiia i mezhdunarodnoe sotrudnichestvo: programma sotrudnichestva ministerstva prosveshcheniia 2003-2007 gg. Opetusministerin julkaisuja, No. 21, 2003.
4. 5. Prozorov, Sergei (2004). Border Regions and the Politics of EU-Russian Relations. Department of Political Science and International Relations, Working Papers Series in EU Border Conflicts Studies, No. 3. University of Birmingham.
6. Voracek, Jan (2003). From the International Master’s Programme in Information Technology to the Concept of Cross-Border University: research report for the Finnish Ministry of Education. Lappeenranta: Department of Information Technology, Lappeenranta University of Technology.
7. Voracek, Jan & Zemcik, Pavel (1999). Cross-Border Education – Project and Realisation. Proceedings of the ICEE’99, Ostrava, Czech Republic. 2.5.2005.
htm> Tuukka Arosara Researcher, University of Joensuu, Karelian institute Finnish Academy LABOUR MARKET TRANSFORMATION IN 1990’ S KARELIAN REPUBLIC In less than 20 years have Russian society and labour markets gone thru massive transformation from state socialism to market- or mixed economy. Different processes of transition have transformed the institutional basis of society, and caused changes in employment, division of labour between branches of economy and also living standards of people and social stratification (see Gerber & Hout 1998). Russian transition has also differentiated regional economic and social development, which is realised in differentiation of opportunities depending on the place of residence (See; Gerber 2000).
Empirical studies on Russian labour markets clearly indicate that their adaptation has been peculiar in several respects. Available information permits the argument that they are conditioned by a deep regional division of labour and increasing disparities in the economic and social development of the regions (Denissenko 2004, Zimin 2004). Also inside regions and industry branches there are substantial wage inequalities, which would seem to indicate that there are significant barriers to labour mobility (Clarke 2000, 500). Regional mobility of labour is comparatively low due to outdated infrastructure, restrictions on housing policies, regulations of local authorities and employees attaching policies (housing and in-kind payments). Labour turnover is comparatively high and open unemployment is modest. A large share of labour, both in big cities as well as in the countryside, is working at least partly outside market-related formal organisations in informal sectors of the economy. A peculiarity of the Russian labour market has been accumulation of wage arrears, which allowed wages, but not employment, to adjust downwards and in this sense, the Russian labour market has been seen be some as a “neoclassical dream” or the textbook example of This paper is produced under Finnish academy funded project No. 208150 and in co-operation with Karelian Research centre’s Institute of Economics. Special thanks belongs to Oxana Krutova, who has helped me finding the statistical and other information on Karelian Republics Labour Markets.
a “flexible labour market” (Smirnova 2003). (see Boeri & Flinn 1999;
Grosfeld et al. 2001; Andrienko & Guriev, 2003; Friebel & Guriev, 2002) Against this background the present study derives from the argument that there is still need for wider institutional and political reforms in labour market policies in Russia in order to promote different forms of labour mobility. Labour mobility has many functions in labour market adaptation. Economists emphasize spatial and occupational mobility as a mean for structural adjustment of economy; workers ought to move to regions where suitable work is available and also change industry or employer for the bigger profits. Mobility is seen as a reallocation of resources, which enables economic growth. Most often Russian enterprises are accused of labour hoarding, which means that they keep more employees on the payroll than is necessary for production (see criticism of this view in Clarke 1998). At individual and household level occupational and spatial mobility can be seen as a means or “strategies” to better ones position and achieve security and social prestige.
Labour mobility and the alternative job opportunities Possibly most widely studied form of labour mobility is job mobility (turnover) in the context of economic restructuring. Job mobility is produced by structural forces of expansion and contraction as well as by individual choices (DiPrete et. al 1997, 318). The main theoretical theme in the study of labour mobility and labour turnover has been alternative job opportunities. It has been associated with such divergent phenomenon as labour market diversity, occupational distributions, and economic development as well as with residential, job, and career pathway shifting. In its various forms, it overlaps the territorial prerogatives of several academic disciplines. It is for this reason that “opportunities” has become a prime linkage concept in research focusing on understanding employee turnover. Furthermore alternative jobopportunities can be divided in perceived and objective opportunities.
Both types of opportunities are tied to actual labour market positions generated through various types of market activity. (Kirschenbaum& Mano-Negrin, 1999) Labour markets and mobility in Karelian Republic In studying labour mobility and differentiated opportunity structures of labour market participants the vital context of analysis is labour market developments that have taken place in certain region. The size and structure of labour markets determine opportunities to find a job and also to change one’s position in labour markets. Labour markets and their functioning are interconnected with the changes in the size and quality of labour force. The size of labour force is interconnected to size of population, which is affected by migration and birth and death rates. The population size in Karelian Republic has constantly diminished between years 1993 – 2001 (Table1).
Population in Karelian Republic (at the beginning of year Source:
Trudovie resursi v Respublike Karelia, Goskomstat RK- Petrozavodsk 2001) Year Population in thousands men women men % women % 1991 798,2 380,6 417,6 47,7 52,1992 799,3 381,4 417,9 47,7 52,1993 798,4 381,1 417,3 47,7 52,1994 793 378,1 414,9 47,7 52,1995 788,1 375,3 412,8 47,6 52,1996 783,8 372,6 411,2 47,5 52,1994 779,1 369,9 409,2 47,5 52,1998 775,2 367,8 407,4 47,4 52,1999 771,1 365,7 405,4 47,4 52,2000 765,1 362,5 402,6 47,4 52,2001 760,6 360 400,6 47,3 52,The labour market transformation that has taken place in Karelian Republic can be seen on allocation of labour force between different property forms. Between years 1992 – 2001 the labour force in public sector and municipal sector almost halved from 300 000 workers to 155 200. This dramatic change is more connected to privatisation process than labour mobility between different property forms. But it seems that job-loss from public and municipal sector has stopped and after year 1998 the amount of employees in public sector has been quite constant (around 150 000 employees). Even though that public and municipals sector has declined in size it is still important employer in the republic. In year 2001 almost 46 per cent of the labour force still worked in public or municipal owned work places. The role of private and joint Russian employers has increased and after year 1997 almost all new jobs were created to these two sectors (fig. 1).
Материалы этого сайта размещены для ознакомления, все права принадлежат их авторам.
Если Вы не согласны с тем, что Ваш материал размещён на этом сайте, пожалуйста, напишите нам, мы в течении 1-2 рабочих дней удалим его.